Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"The powers given to the Executive Officer, are the administration of the Temple and its properties and maintain these in a secular manner. Hence, the rights of the petitioners are not at all affected or interfered with, in any manner whatsoever the aim and reason behind the appointment of the Executive Officer is not for removing the petitioners who call themselves as trustees to this Temple." (Emphasis added) J. The respondent no.6 preferred Writ Petition No.18248 of 2006 for setting aside the order dated 9.5.2006 which was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 2.2.2009 observing that the judgment referred to hereinabove in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 379-380 of 1951 titled Marimuthu Dikshitar v. The State of Madras & Anr., reported in 1952 (1) MLJ 557, wherein it was held that Dikshitars were a ’religious denomination’, would not operate as res judicata. K. Aggrieved, the respondent no.6 filed Writ Appeal No.181 of 2009. The present appellant Dr. Subramanian Swamy was allowed by the High Court to be impleaded as a party. The Writ Appeal has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.9.2009.

50. Thus, the appeals are allowed. Judgments/orders impugned are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

.............................................J. (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN) .........................................J. (S.A. BOBDE) New Delhi, January 6, 2014 REVISED ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.4 SECTION XII (For judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 10620 OF 2013 DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY Appellant (s) VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH Civil Appeal NO. 10621 of 2013 Civil Appeal NO. 10622 of 2013 Date: 06/01/2014 These Appeals were called on for hearing today.